Sovereign Network Group (202426364)

Background

1. The property is a 3-bedroom flat on the first floor of a converted house. In April 2024 the resident first reported damp and mould inside the property, and shortly afterwards reported that this was linked to guttering being blocked from an overhanging tree. The tree was felled in September 2024, and gutters cleared, but the resident then reported that she had been told that the positioning of the guttering itself was also contributing to the internal damp and mould.

What the complaints are about

2. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders or recommendations for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord displayed a good understanding of its failings – both the delays in the repairs being completed, and how it had communicated updates to the resident. During the second complaint in 2025 it endeavoured to review its handling of repairs that had been considered during the first complaint, and made a total offer of compensation which reflected the significant impact on the resident.
7. The landlord applied its compensation policy consistently when crediting one compensation payment to the resident’s rent account, rather than paying directly to her bank account. All written responses were issued within the timescales set out in the Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). The landlord also quickly acknowledged an error in how it had calculated compensation at stage 2, and apologised to the resident for this.

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. The landlord accepted repair responsibility (as set out in the tenancy agreement) for the maintenance of the exterior of the building, including drains, gutters and pipes. The tenancy agreement also states that residents are responsible for maintaining their non-communal gardens.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for maintaining internal walls and plasterwork. It also explains its timescales for completing repairs: it aims to complete routine works within one calendar month, and complex works (which might require further investigation and/or the use of more specialist contractors) within 90 days.
10. The landlord also has a policy covering the management of trees. It says that it can ask contractors to attend to trees in non-communal gardens in cases where they are causing damage to a property, and residents cannot maintain them independently. It also says that resident requests relating to trees will receive a response within 5 working days.
11. The landlord applied its tree policy appropriately as it did respond to the resident first raising this within 5 working days. It also assessed the ability of both the resident and the neighbour (whose garden contained the tree) to maintain it themselves when it had them fill in a form before works could be approved. However, it did not manage the resident’s expectations as it took almost 3 months to advise her that this was necessary- from her first mention of the tree on 3 May 2024 to the landlord first raising the need for her to fill in the form on 30 July 2024.
12. The first stage 2 response in September 2024 did demonstrate learning, as it acknowledged the landlord’s failings regarding the felling of the tree. This included both the overall delays in the works being arranged, and that it had not promptly informed the resident of the process to be followed so that it would accept responsibility for the tree. Its offer of £530 compensation was also satisfactory given these failings.
13. The landlord was inconsistent in the quality of its communication with the resident during the life of the first complaint. From April to June 2024 it  kept in regular contact, and asked relevant questions in order to better understand the repairs issues. Then from July to September 2024 the frequency of its contact dropped, and there is little evidence of it updating the resident on the repairs outside of its written complaint responses.
14. This continued during the second complaint in 2025. We made an additional request for the landlord to provide evidence of it contacting the resident with repairs updates during this time, but it has not been able to do so. Outside of the stage 1 and stage 2 responses we only have 2 emails from the landlord to the resident about the repairs in early April 2025.
15. In its stage 2 response to the second complaint raised in March 2025, the landlord recognised that there had been further delays in completing both the guttering repairs, and works to make good the internal walls. It also identified that its communication of repairs appointments had not been timely, and if this had been more prompt then it was likely that guttering repairs would have been completed before the unrelated scaffolding was erected, which delayed things further.
16. In doing so, the landlord displayed a solid understanding of its failings in this complaint. Its compensation offer of £1,164 both represented a review of its handling of repairs already considered during the first complaint in 2024, and a reflection of the significant impact of these failings on the resident. It was also appropriate for it to offer interim mould washes while the resident was waiting for the works to the internal walls to be completed.
17. The landlord confirmed to us that the guttering, plastering and painting works were completed by 13 August 2025. From the resident’s first reports of damp and mould in April 2024 it took a total of 16 months for this issue to be resolved, which is broadly outside of its 90 day timescales for complex repairs.
18.  In response, over 2 logged complaints the landlord has offered a total of £1,694 in compensation, which we have found to be a sufficient form of redress. In line with our compensation guidance, this meets the extent of the maladministration that has been identified, and the severity of the impact on the resident for a prolonged period of time. We have not made any recommendation for the landlord to reoffer the compensation as we have already seen evidence of payment.

19. The landlord’s complaints policy mirrored the Code in that it gave 5 working days to acknowledge a complaint, and a further 10 working days to respond at stage 1. At stage 2 the landlord had 5 working days to acknowledge, and then a further 20 working days to issue the full response.
20. The landlord’s compensation policy stated that it will credit compensation to a resident’s rent account in cases where they are in arrears. However, it can consider whether a resident might be in financial hardship, and in these cases it can still choose to pay compensation directly into a resident’s bank account.
21. When confirming that it would credit the £727 compensation from the stage 1 response of 24 March 2025 to the resident’s rent account, the landlord applied its compensation policy appropriately. Between 1 and 3 April 2025 the resident disputed its decision to do this as she was keeping to a repayment plan to reduce the arrears. From this email exchange it is reasonable that the landlord did not have any concerns about the resident being in particular financial hardship.
22. The landlord issued all written responses over both complaints within its timescales. The landlord did acknowledge a minor error in how it had calculated the total compensation in its stage 2 response of 13 May 2025. The following day it contacted the resident again, attaching an amended stage 2 response with the calculation corrected. The landlord apologised to the resident for this error in the covering email. As such, we have made a finding of reasonable redress as the landlord promptly recognised this failing and took steps to put it right.

Learning

23. The landlord failed to retain an oversight over its staff, contractors and procedures to ensure that it could meet its obligations. In particular when raising repairs, and updating residents on the progress of works. The landlord needs to know why these failures occurred and what should improve to avoid any similar failure from happening.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord could not provide evidence of the scaffolding for retrofit works being struck in 2025, and of the subsequent guttering repairs. Otherwise, the evidence it provided was sufficient to be able to investigate the complaint.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication was inconsistent, and there is evidence of a lack of it making contact with the resident, outside of the formal written complaint responses, from July 2024 onwards.